Greatoneshere

20 hours ago, Jason said:

 

I meant that mechanically it felt like the movie was just stopping instead of actually ending, which would have made more send if they'd labeled it as a two-parter. Not labeling it that way, I'm sure people were left wondering why the movie was just stopping. 

Yeah but that's a semantics issue more than anything. 

On 8/17/2018 at 1:32 PM, elbobo said:

 

prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal, that is double jeopardy

Correct, but they'd appeal on grounds of jury bias or judge misconduct or some other legal technicality that would allow them to potentially re-litigate the case's facts and charges again. 

23 hours ago, elbobo said:

 

It is any crime. They can't keep trying you over and over again for robbing a bank. If you are found not guilty that is it. 

See above. 

21 hours ago, Chairslinger said:

I was going to write out a long explanation of how, if this jury let's Manafort off the hook, it almost has to be because of a juror with an ax to grind. And, while not technically an appeal, I beleive the prosecution could then sue to have the decision thrown out if the juror had tipped his hand on his bias.

 

But there's a much simpler answer here. There is virtually no chance the whole jury is going to aquit on all charges. At best Manafort gets off on one or more counts due to a hung jury and the prosecution can choose to bring charges again, from what I understand.

 

Whether they would...who knows. If they win his next trial then it seems likely. If they lose there, trying Manafort again after "losing" twice would likely provide a lot of political fodder to the witch hunt narrative.

More or less correct.  

29 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

good society

WOW.

Welp - that's that. We don't like helping those whose lives are the hardest, and we make false equivalencies between an entire work force and one family. This is fine. 

44 minutes ago, Chris- said:

The best delineation is still the first major news event you (1) remember witnessing, and (2) understood the consequences it would have on society. For me, that would be Columbine (I remember OJ's trial, Clinton's impeachment, and Princess Diana's death, but I didn't really 'get' them at the time).

I'm the same. We're millenials, I think, but on the oldest end. I agree, millenials know what VCR's are and what VHS tapes are. Maybe the youngest millenials don't?

Yeah, some of the evidence of some of the crimes is incontrovertible. This will be appealed if he gets off completely, and they prosecution will win on appeal. 

13 hours ago, Chris- said:

Ya boi ChrisDash has a PA medical marijuana card on the way.

Glad you're representing us! Nice work. 

11 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

This is why I get irritated whenever I hear older generations bitching about millennials as they are on the whole far more responsible than previous ones when it comes to these types of issues.

Bingo!

Though kids currently in high school are not millenials. I'm 31 and people tell me I'm a millenial, and I do not believe I am in the same group as kids currently in high school. 

2 hours ago, Jason said:

I mean who would have thought Omarosa would go scorched earth once ejected from the inner circle?

Actually, I'm not surprised she's the one going scorched earth. She has nothing to lose in terms of her reputation, she's just as much of a lying snake as Trump is, and she knows his reality TV ways and methods. She probably weighed in her mind she could make more money and gain more influence through rejecting the $15,000/month offer and doing this book/tapes song and dance instead. 

Says as much about her as it does about Trump. This woman was on the Apprentice and lost 3 times but Trump kept her around because she was his evil wild card on the show.

Or, if we want to get somewhat racist about it, Trump should know (in his mind, presumably) when you piss off a black woman what's gonna happen. Does he work in stereotypes?  

The wedding ring gives it away, when he's wearing it vs. when he's not wearing it. It's never really been a mystery. 

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

I’m glad 25th Hour has seen its reputation grow in stature over the years. The flick really hit me from the first time I saw it, so I’ve enjoyed seeing the film reconsidered by many critics who initially were kinda down on it.

 

My wife really loved BlacKKKlansmen, so we ended up watching Inside Man when we got home. I hadn’t seen it in 5 or 6 years but I felt like my appreciation for what Lee was going for has swelled. I’m also really into the “howdunit” genre of mystery/suspense, and I think the movie does that trick really well.

25th Hour and Inside Man are both fantastic films and great Spike Lee joints. I wasn't even aware 25th Hour and Inside Man weren't loved. Even when they came out I remember most critics liking them?

I like em either way. 

57 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

It's cute until you realize these are presumably the "mature adults" running the show, so to speak. 

43 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

My stars what a shitty take.

That is indeed quite the hot take. I wonder what they'd say about Hitler:

"He held the highest position in Germany, commanded great armies, led incredible generals on successful military campaigns, and he could have ruled the world but no one would let him! He was a man ahead of his time."

Like, what in the fuck? 

4 hours ago, Hurdyb1 said:

(OH SNAP, just learned that Psycho Pass will get a new animated movie in January 2019, YAY)

Yep! It's actually planned to be a trilogy of films. 

15 hours ago, marioandsonic said:

They managed to turn "liberal" into a slur, so I don't know why you're surprised by this.

Not surprised, just tired of it haha. 

15 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

 

FTFY.

Except Trump never paid Michael Cohen, who was out $130,000 for paying Stormy Daniels on Trump's behalf, so even then he doesn't?  

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Why do you think they do it? Like all things they do, to trigger the libs.

I'm more bothered by it's actual incorrectness. I keep thinking they are talking about some absurd third party. It's just asinine. But you are right, that's why they do it. I just wish they triggered me with facts, not stupidity. That'd actually be worth something. 

The slur term "Democrat" is so fucking tiring from Republicans and Trump. It's the Democratic party you fucking idiots, not the Democrat party. Just a small pet peeve of mine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

18 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Don McGann basically told folks they were just for show and were essentially to placate Trump.

Yep, I remember when that happened and I was like: "this is ridiculous". Now here we are, finding out there were NDA's actually made, when everyone knew from the start they were unenforceable and only existed to placate Trump. Waste of government resources and creating false power, WOOOOOO.

3 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Who is covering the bill? Campaign money?

Someone who isn't Trump must be paying, because Trump pays no one. 

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

It's not directed at you specifically... relax.

I was genuinely just checking since you posted that directly under my post in this thread was all.  

39 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

"Unless someone we like does it. THEN,  it's Comedy".

If this is directed at me specifically, I think you're truly missing what I'm saying then, perhaps blinded by the issue, I don't know. Because I certainly don't feel what you're saying. 

9 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

*Translation: "I like Sam Bee and James Gunn so what they do is okay, but Roseanne and any Republican who does something similar can go right to hell".

 

It's cool... I've seen this before, I remember calling Bill Maher out on this board a while back for his racist bullshit (long before his N-word gaffe and before Ice Cube took him to task) and I was shouted down be well meaning posters on this board too. What you guys fail to realize is that all of the clever rationalizations and differentiations that you come up with to defend the bad behavior of your favs, the "other side" does the same thing and the feel just as justified and righteous as YOU do. I try to be consistent in calling out bullshit when I see it. The funny thing is, as I've said I don't know Gunn and have never met him but I know guys who do and while they defend him, they have also said that there's even MORE problematic shit that he has said and done out there that hasn't gone public yet. But yeah, keep defending one joke over another... A lot of the arguments you guys are making to defend Sam Bee are the same ones folks use to defend Roseanne. I've even heard some of these same arguments used to defend TRUMP. 

 

So in summation, what we've learned is that on Dayonepatch, Jokes and insults about race? BAD   Jokes about child rape and insults based on gender? O-TAY!

Got it.

But I didn't say I approve of what James Gunn or Samantha Bee did. There's no "rationalizing" on my part here. They aren't analogous situations. They all may be on the same spectrum or sliding scale, but they are far enough apart from one another to not be exactly analogous to one another, that's all I'm saying.

I wasn't making my personal stance on Gunn, Bee, or Roseanne part of the argument. I'm saying you said because what I said about Gunn, then I must be implicitly agreeing to what Roseanne did too then. That's simply not true, given I believe they are entirely different free speech situations, which they are. How is a person on Twitter insulting a specific individual with a racial epithet the same as a bunch of bad jokes from years ago making fun of things Gunn himself very obviously doesn't do and doesn't believe in? Are they both reprehensible? Sure. To the same degree? No, not at all, thus: different situations. They aren't the same situation, so they do not inspire the same response.

Free speech laws in this country are very, very context-based, and that's because few free speech situations are exactly the same. Stop trying to tell me I'm making an argument I simply am not making. I've said from the start that Gunn's jokes have always been (arguably, mind you), bad form. Sam Bee and Roseanne are also different situations. 

For emphasis: never said Gunn's "jokes" and blog posts and weird costume parties are totally okay! And that Roseanne is the devil. Stop working in binary absolutes given that we're dealing with a spectrum, not a black and white issue. If someone "on the left" said and did, in a vacuum, exactly the same thing Roseanne did, I'd have been all over it as I was the Roseanne Barr situation (which was: I didn't care much, but it was obviously bad and racist). But that isn't the case here, so the response is different from me. 

13 hours ago, johnny said:

My friend is like this. She basically refuses to watch movies unless it’s a Disney animated film or Harry Potter. She won’t even watch the movies that come from books that she likes because she thinks it’ll ruin the book for her (besides HP obvs) 

Time to dump this friend.  

16 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Okay so Roseanne's offense was worse because it was directed at a specific individual? I remember when Sam Bee directed a misogynistic comment at a specific individual not even a WEEK after Roseanne's gaffe and a lot of you defended her as well. The false equivalency seems to be based on whether  "If I like the person who does the offensive thing, I will defend them until my dying breath" 

 

I don't think you understood the substance of my post at all. What Roseanne did and what Gunn did are different. They are. In terms of intent and meaning (as well as timeline and their actions since then) they are entirely different examples and cannot be equated to one another.

But you focused on the fact that I'm also distinguishing that James Gunn is just making some broad, bad, lazy jokes and Roseanne is directly attacking a specific person racially. That also makes them different, but let's not lose the forest for the trees here. The broader point is in their intent, meaning, and efficacy, Gunn's situation and Roseanne's situation are hardly alike.

Roseanne and Sam Bee are nothing alike either, given Sam Bee is a comedian doing political speech on her show when she said "cunt" about a public, political figure and Roseanne was racially attacking someone on Twitter, not in her capacity as a comedian on her show Roseanne. Yes, those are also different from one another. And even their shows, Roseanne and Sam Bee's show, are nothing alike, so even if Roseanne did it on her show they'd still be different scenarios.

Speech is so unique that almost every situation is not comparable to another situation. Sometimes, sure, but not here. 

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

They aren't... Roseanne is an actual comedian.

That's a false equivalency in this instance though. What they do has little bearing on the context of what is being discussed here, Gunn's tweets vs. Roseanne's. Intent and meaning behind the tweets determines the efficacy, not each person's overall profession.

A non-comedian making a joking tweet and a comedian making  a non-joking tweet isn't what matters. What matters is that in one context clearly it was off-color and bad but ultimately bad jokes, the other is a racist comment directed at a specific individual. Intent and meaning are what absolves Gunn and doesn't absolve Roseanne. Also aggregate evidence of everything following since then indicates the moral character of each individual enough to safely indict one person (Roseanne) and arguably exonerate another (Gunn).